ryanh

Existing anger is not at all what I am thinking of. Yes, a previous choice, and a learned response to become angry has to be dealt with in constructive ways. There needs to be outlets. I am not at all speaking about repressing a feeling of anger that is already present. If you counsel, you should then be well aware of the various theories that bring the matter to more basal levels where the choice of how to respond is developed. That is the level I am speaking of - the mindful observer of our thoughts, feelings, and responses. I also find it interesting that this Sunday School lesson encourages discussion about what causes anger and then puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that we can control our anger. Both President Hinckley's talk and the Sunday School lesson clearly (at least to me) operate on the assumption that people will get angry, but whether or not they sin depends on how they manage that anger. So I do have a problem with saying that a person who has felt the emotion of anger has sinned. And yet, both of those resources (and the scriptures and many other admonitions from prophets and apostles) tell us we should resist anger, prevent it, be slow to anger, etc. Why would that be the admonition if it were a "righteous" and "good" thing?Nor do I automatically classify anger as a sinful response. It’s a matter of progression and refinement; learning to yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man types of response. It is no more a "sin" to autonomicly feel anger than it is for a toddler to fall because they have not yet learned to walk. Putting off the angry response to any stimuli is a matter of progression and refinement, but one that posters here are not going to be aware of unless it is brought up and discussed as even being a possibility.

Clinical issues are a whole different realm than is being discussed here. If your anger is chemical based, similar to one's inability to come out of depression is chemical based, then the situation is wholly inapplicable to the discussion. Or . . . the lack of analyzing the root of what leads to your anger, in the way Slam has begun to touch upon, is precisely why you still struggle with it. And, then you wonder why you haven't tackled it yet? There have been many ideas over the years in psychology as to what is "right" or "best". Just because there is a thought that has been espoused does not mean it is correct in the light of the gospel, or what truly is best for our health. What do we tell over and over to the people that come one these forums that have masturbation issues? Don't feed the beast, and it will eventually starve. Why continue to "practice" being angry? For most people, that is a poor practice of how to reduce anger in their lives. One that simply redirects the anger to healthy outlets, but does not deal with the root issue. Trying to apply techniques for control of clinical issues to the general population as a basis of understanding is going to produce false conclusions every time. It's a sdrawkcab approach.

Oh come on Backroads! Follow the logical path and result of each emotion. And I don't think you are unaware of the admonitions of the sermon on the mount. Anger is fundamentally different from most other emotions we feel.

And God also gave us many other weaknesses that if indulged are a sin. God gave us the capability to kill as well as to be angry. Just because there is a capability does not automatically make something "good" and "righteous". Nor is anger a necessary part for healing. When we are angry about being hurt, it is a protective reaction - a reaction that prevents us from fulfilling the higher law expectations of us - to "turn the other cheek". I have mourned without anger. It is not a necessity by any means. , whose wife, son, and only daughter were killed in 2007 by a drunk teenage driver is a wonderful example of someone finding healing FAR faster by not giving audience to his anger than he possibly could have were his reaction to use anger as a tool for healing. There is nothing that speaks so well as one who has really had to grapple with an issue, analyze themselves, and truly get to the root of a weakness. You are wise from your experiences Slam - I really can feel it from that post. I'm saddened that others don't naturally see the true wisdom behind your understanding, but are so quick to dismiss it. Kudos to you for making such copious amounts of lemonade from all the lemons. That's precisely the point apple, that anger is the resultant choice of the thought processes. Anger of course isn't "false", it is most definitely real. Grab a couple psychology books, really study where anger comes from (our choice to react to how we perceive and choose to feel about a stimuli). Or, just read the ensign article I linked to above. Consider how two people respond differently to the same stimuli. It could be anything - let's use getting hurt. Perhaps stubbing one's toe badly - we've all done that. Some people (kids especially who have not learned yet to be angry at hurt) have no anger. Yet others swear, get hopping mad, and kick the offending object with their good foot. What was the difference? The choice of what to do about the stimuli. The choice of how to respond. , whose wife, son, and only daughter were killed in 2007 by a drunk teenage driver is a prime example that how one responds to a tragedy is a choice.I vehemently disagree about feelings being neither good or bad!!! Go back to this last general conference and listen to Elder Oak's on Desire. Our choice of what to feel is precisely what leads to actions. It is the seed of act! We will be judged on our thoughts, feelings, and works. For the thoughts and feelings show what is truly in our heart. A must watch MormonMessages video for all people in regards to dealing with anger and forgiveness:

Secondary to what?Well, that's a darn good question which I didn't ask. I assumed she meant things such as being hurt, afraid, happy, etc. Emotions which are only about how we feel, not how we feel towards others. See the article link above. The author does address the roots of anger, and how anger is a result, not the original response.

I would highly suggest both you and your wife read the entire article by Burton C. Kelly titled The Case Against Anger for some ideas to discuss. I tend to agree with Burton that there is no such thing as righteous anger. To address some points already made in this thread that assert there is righteous anger based on scriptural references to the Lord's anger, I've copied one section from the article below.

Too bad my mother isn't still alive. She could really contribute to this thread. Raw oysters, tripe, head cheese, salmon cheeks . . . I can recall as a little kid seeing cow tongue and pickled pigs feet in the fridge. There wasn't much she didn't try from old-school american fare.

I can well recall in Cabanatuan, riding a trike on the south end of town up high above the waterway, headed east on a road where there was a very large cement pad and several pavilion-like roofing structures. Under the roofing areas, in the shade was about 10 kennels, each filled with several mutt dogs. A couple days later when we passed this same site, the kennels were gone, the dogs were gone, and there were numerous charcoal piles every 10 feet or so with supports on each side typical of a roasting spit. I'm not against meat eating, or even harvesting my own animals. I've done it with deer, pigs, chickens, rabbits, turkeys, etc, etc. But, being raised in a culture where dogs are companions not food, passing by that site and seeing how many dogs were cooked there was a little hard to stomach. I should dig out my mission photos of dogs on spits, and one companion holding a roasted dog head. On second thought, I think I'll pass reliving those particular memories.

Itlog na Malatt - a Philippino salted duck egg. Man was I glad there was a coke nearby to wash that nasty thing down! lol (although Bini and Anatess might disagree about it being nasty, I recall having a hard time choking it down) I watched my companions eat Balut. After watching them pull a duck bill and feathers out of their teeth, there was no way I would try it. Same goes for the many dogs I saw on spitts. Still looked like fido to me, just with no hair - couldn't eat it.

Wow. That was . . . well . . . impressive, but not in a good way. Is this a sensitve hot-button issue for you? Sure seemed to have struck some sort of nerve!

The absence of grand offenses does not equal being a "good" spouse. I dare say that in the majority of affair situations, the cheated on spouse has a major role in the cheating spouse's motivation to do so. Usually (and there most certainly are exceptions) an affair is started because of unmet needs - and those needs are being unmet by the cheated on spouse.Go read Dr. Harley's His Need, Her Needs - How to affair proof your marriage. He will explain better what I am getting at. That if she did indeed cheat on you, it is highly likely you had a large part in her decision to do so.

Here's a fact useless for most people: Male snakes have two . . . uhm . . . reproductive organs. Common gartersnakes have been studied and found to be right . . . well . . . 'handed' (for lack of a better word). They are generally ambidextrous, but favor using their right . . . 'organ'.

I could only speculate as to why there is a struggle, but I would bet it has roots in lay ministry that are often overburdened with many pressing matters. It is interesting to me that my Bishop of less than a year in the position, was able to explain to me the process, show me the forms, and had a full understanding of it. Didn't seem to be a problem in my most recent ex-ward.

Wow. And, so, you are going to judge LM, without knowing him, as someone in your "don't like" list, simply based on a screen name? Wow.

What on earth was that for? And how does it in any way relate to this thread?

Prior to ever being married, I probably might have said yes to the original question - if there was a special spark of love there. Having experienced a marriage that ended after 15 years of difficulty, I say "absolutely not" to the original question. Knowing what I know now, about both myself, and how typical relationships work from copious reading on the subject (attempting to overcome the difficulties), I say that for most people (there are always exceptions), physical intimacy is a critical lubricant for proper functioning of a marriage. MM - I've posted it on here before, and don't want to recount it right now, but I did get an answer that it was right to marry my ex. It was very clear, and was repeated to me. I don't think that such a answer that "it is right" will preclude extreme sexual dysfunction. Nor does it mean that your spouse won't eventually choose to give up and leave even though Heavenly Father said the union was "right". So, I think in large part, we are left to simply trust that Heavenly Father will warn us (if we are listening) that the choice we are making is not good or right. And, if we have difficulties, it is in part because it was his plan for our growth and development. I look at your 'weak' situation (the decade of extreme difficulty) and see now how it has been made 'strong'. I'd never have wished that on you personally, but I don't doubt that Heavenly Father has consecrated it for your eternal gain. And so it will be for all such marriage difficulties IMO.

In a number of talks, Elder Bednar has commented on how his wife does it. She prays for discernment and eyes to see who can use her help.

We see so many of these threads here. The key factor for me in this thread, sbg320's husband, CopenKagen's wife, Milliani's husband, and countless other stories recounted on lds.net is not that there exists and issue, but that the (one-sided) recounting of the situation shows an unwillingness of a party to seek solutions. Abused in the past or not, conscious of it or not, adverse or just apathetic to intimacy, the real issue is the unwillingness to be a partner and helpmeet and improve a situation that is difficult for a spouse. Serious health issues, psychological issues, or whatever, there usually is little excuse for not seeking help and betterment of a situation. Even if in only very small degrees. If someone chooses to be the “powerholder” and maintain the status quo to the detriment of their spouse, then they are the ones in the wrong IMO. And the past is a moot point, not even worth bringing up except in context of what are they going to do about it. We all have our issues of the past, but they never are an excuse for sitting on one’s hands and letting a spouse suffer.

In providing for a contractual relationship, States do not contemplate the necessity of having children. Rather, States expect that a marriage contract is being entered into for the purposes of a real marriage (the interpersonal relationship), not a marriage for financial or convenience reasons only. I did hear recently that some states still have laws that mandate a marriage be consummated in order to be valid and binding. Apparently the purpose being to prevent two friends who have no intent of having a marriage type relationship from entering the contract only for the benefits of the legal classification.

PM sent.

Well, if you listen to many of the sexperts on this forum, it must be something that occurred outside the bedroom that is impacting their ability to relate in bed. It must be a "symptom" of something else, not a origin of difficulty. I can't imagine there is much you can do to help resolve it. It really is between them. And, I suspect the issue will take care of itself naturally. Most likley, your brother will eventually reach a breaking point, a "critical mass" as David Schnarch puts it, and something with have to change. The only thing I can think of is to suggest to your brother to not wait until the relationship is too far poisoned to be salvageable before he demands change. There is a risk that he white knuckles it until the point he is fed up and leaves. If he can direct that energy into change that is positive rather than divorce, that would be helpful. Backroads, are you interested in reading some of David Schnarch's book that describes this cycle of one partner reaching critical mass and initiating change? I think the book would be good for you and your brother, even if a rather explicit and forward read. I have some chapters scanned and in .pdf if you are interested.

You misunderstand revelation if you ask such a question. Rarely is there a revelation if a question is not asked. Eewww. This is starting to sound more and more like someone that wants to hang onto a dead prophet's voice over the current prophets. Are you saying that because President Young had ‘valid’ reasons for denying black priesthood before, that we should continue such today? Sure is starting to sound like that from what I read. Sunday_Warrior: you started the thread with the rhetorical question of why don't we listed to the prophets. I would ask you why you don't listen to the Savior's admonition to not worry about the mote in another's eye while there is a beam in your own? Give up already judging others as apostates, future apostates, or people that don't stand with God's anointed. Worry about yourself more, and others less. I and your EQ buddy can take care of our own salvation better without being judged unrighteously.

And yet others have other crosses to bear - like the OP who has a person that is supposed to be a helpmeet who is undermining her in many ways. And on top of that cross is all of the judgment and prejudice thrown her way from members that simply don't understand, or won't let others have their personal weaknesses too. You have graciously exposed your weakness to us Anatess in hopes of facilitating understanding, and I sincerely don't want to say anything interpreted as attacking that. But, while your issue may be anger, perhaps the OP's personal issue is an inability to persevere in demeaning and degrading circumstances. And that is OK. Christ does not expect perfection from her any more than he expects you to never loose it. I’m going to presume the best Anatess, and work from the position that despite your personal challenges that are an issue for your marriage, that there are many other ways that you meet your husband’s needs. Other things you do that fill his “love bank”. (were it not so, then I would conclude he is either a masochist, or slowly being worn down and on the way out) If that is correct, then that would be a fundamental difference from your position and the situation the OP paints. Love, affection, connection, meeting emotional needs, all uplift and counteract the difficult emotional issues we face in marriage. But when there is no such uplifting, but only negative, then it does cause a situation apparently you have not faced (and I hope you never do). Having experienced it, I can well see why the OP has lost love, and feels the need to get out. Thank you. That is precisely my sentiment. Members of the Church that end up divorced get enough proverbial "sand in the eyes" from the doctrine that marriage is to be eternal, expectations of perfection, etc, that they don't need castigation from those that have never experienced it and simply don't understand.

And then how does Gatekeeper's or your post in any way relate to the OP? This thread not about tackling in-laws, financial difficulties, etc. This is about direct interpersonal relations.

A successful marriage most certainly IS work, but . . . a "battlefield"? If our spouse, or our marriage is viewed as an 'enemy', or the relationship is viewed as a hated contest of conquering, I dare say that marriage is going to be a miserable one!Such a relationship in no way shape or form is a marriage that is progressing towards the Celestial standard. No, that is not a marriage - that is the lowly state of roommates with financial ties and occasional 'benefits'. Such is wrong in light of the higher law, and steps should be taken to repent and change the nature of the relationship, starting with one's own view of what a marriage is supposed to be. The same goes for the OP. I think you will get some clarity over your own extreme ambivalence when you rightly view your marriage for how truly broken it is.